If nuclear energy would have alternative to petroleum, US, France, Japan, Germany would have never looked at petroleum. Just get electricity from nuclear reactors, and run factories and transportation on electricity. Why to look at oil wells.
Incidentally, nuclear energy is not environment friendly. Developed world knows their nuclear technology is not safe. BUT, so what, they always can sell to India after nuclear deal.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 10:13 PM Permalink
Yes US has not build nuclear plants and so did European countries like UK. Things have changed. The French experiment has shown that it can be safe. Beside spiraling cost of fossil fuels have redefined economic viability. So the US and UK are going big time into nuclear capacity creation.
Out of the 35 new nuclear power plants under construction in the world, Asia accounts for 24 of these. While China is building six new nuclear power plants to get 5,222 MW power for its grid, India too is building six such plants which would add 2910 MW of to its grid.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Kautilya on Jul 12, 2008 10:17 PM Permalink
Please also mention that Japan too is not increasing nuclear energy capacity which is fully dependent on oil from other countries. With all money and technology JAPs would have gone nuclear and would have kicked oil from their country. However it is not happening.
Mr. All Right, for japan nuclear energy is not all right.
RE:RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by ASHOK on Jul 12, 2008 10:40 PM Permalink
Mr Kautilya >> Altough Japan is earthquake prone and Nuclear plants should not be any priority at all but in 2003 they were making 3 new plants and 8 more units were planned to run right upto Year 2015. Pls do not make false propaganda.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 10:21 PM Permalink
Maybe there were treaty obligations with the US after WW2, that they will not have a nuclear program. Similar could be the case of Germany.
As the price of oil scales $150, we need to see to what extent the nuclear option is being re-evaluated by countries
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Kautilya on Jul 12, 2008 10:28 PM Permalink
It not question of cost-benefit ratio vis-a-vis oil. What developed world want is to make India dumping ground for their discarded reactors. Technology transfer is murky world.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by AK on Jul 12, 2008 10:59 PM Permalink
More than treaty obligations, Japan is paranoid about nuclear since they are the only country that saw the effect of a nuclear bomb.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Sanjay on Jul 12, 2008 11:03 PM Permalink
Manu, we are fools who pay more then Americans for coke and pepsi but get contaminated drinks. We pay for ship of America, we find out latter it was junk, killed seven navy personnel and officiers; We still cant fix without america's permission, nor we are able to use it in war restriction on seller agreement.
Indians are fools who sent their engineers scientist, to America a puny nation of three hundred million, but have no good jobs or placements for them in our country. There was a Kurana who won Noble Prize who could not even get a job in India that is why he went back to America. India givs Ramanujans Notebooks to America, while we suffer.
Please understand the pathic state of corruption of this country, instead of tring to make thing worse then slavery and colonials, by making India the dumping ground for nuclear waste euphemism of PM spent fuel.
RE:RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Guest on Jul 13, 2008 09:25 AM Permalink
Yes yes, I know; shadows are scary too! Unfortunately, Indian or American, they still haven't discovered medication for persecution complexes....
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by ASHOK on Jul 12, 2008 10:26 PM Permalink
pls do not mislead. More people die every years in Thermal power plant accidents than Nuclear. as long as these plants are in WEST ( Keep Commie run plants out) Commies have no respect for safety
RE:RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Sanjay on Jul 12, 2008 11:05 PM Permalink
Ashok go raise your family in three mile Island, or Chernoble, you coolie number one who wish to cap our nuclear program. First cap pakistani and Chinese thn talk to us.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Shankara R on Jul 12, 2008 11:29 PM Permalink
Nuclear Power Plants Operating in the United States as of September 30, 2005 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Many power plants have more than one reactor.
Reactor Name Format Reactor Name Format Arkansas Nuclear html Monticello html Beaver Valley html Nine Mile Point html Braidwood html North Anna html Browns Ferry html Oconee html Brunswick html Oyster Creek html Byron html Palisades html Callaway html Palo Verde html Calvert Cliffs html Peach Bottom html Catawba html Perry html Clinton html Pilgrim html Columbia html Point Beach html Comanche Peak html Prairie Island html Cooper Station html Quad Cities html Crystal River html River Bend html Davis-Besse html Robert E Ginna html Diablo Canyon html Salem html Donald C. Cook html San Onofre html Dresden html Seabrook html Duane Arnold html St. Lucie html Enrico Fermi html Sequoyah html Joseph Farley html Shearon Harris html Fitzpatrick html South Texas Project html Fort Calhoun html Virgil C. Summer html Grand Gulf html Surry html H. B. Robinson html Susquehanna html Edwin Hatch html Three Mile Island html Hope Creek html Turkey Point html Indian Point html Vermont Yankee html Kewaunee html Vogtle html LaSalle County html Waterford html Limerick html Watts Bar html McGuire html Watts Bar html Millstone html Wolf Creek html * Operating reactors are those
RE:Congress says N-Deal not an issue for our military programs.If so what is the question of an agreement and a Deal.IAEA can allow free trade on uranium.
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 10:10 PM Permalink
Omar Abdullah, who was Minister of External Affairs during NDA in tonight's Big Fight confirmed that the NDA was negotiating a similar deal. He also confirmed what they got in the deal was substantially less than what the UPA got. Most importantly, he confirmed that the NDA was prepared to sign such a deal which is distinctly worse
RE:Congress says N-Deal not an issue for our military programs.If so what is the question of an agreement and a Deal.IAEA can allow free trade on uranium.
by ASHOK on Jul 12, 2008 10:30 PM Permalink
yes that is correct. Brijsh Mishra also confirms the same.
% murderers and dacoits, 2 from lalu, 2 from mulayam and 1 from paswan are MPs in jail who will vote for Congress and the deal. Congress takes support of such people who will decide our fate !! Long live Congress !!
RE:Murderers to decide
by binod pal on Jul 12, 2008 10:09 PM Permalink
But do you thing the so called 'Opposition' will ever vote for nuclear deal. So, there is noting wrong in taking support of anyone. Also to remember that these people are selected by us only and how many of us actually vote without giving importance to caste, religion and region etc.
There is no use of crying about PM Mammohan Singh & UPA's intertest in signing the treaty.Actually the talks for a nuclear treaty between US and India had started immediately after Pokhran II but in a different name. Now Indian Government has no other options other than signing it & the main reason for signing it may not be energy crisis as highlighted. It is the persuasion from the side of US by various means. You can very well see the petrol prices started escalating only after Pokhran II. For all third world countries including India,US is the middle agent for supplying petrol & petroleum products. No OPEC countries are ready to supply oil directly to India,so we have to buy oil from US only of which the price is decided by them,Since we are importing 70% of our oil requirement we have no options left. Although the OPEC countries are producing and more oil than the market demand the price is on the rise,only because of US and the artificial scarcity generated by them. If UPA government dont sign IAEA the oil price will again increase and the govt will come down because of that.Either way Congress is left with one option dont sign- the govt will fall because of oil price ,Sign- the govt will fall because of left withdrawing the support. If UPA or the previous NDA govt had signed the treaty earlier then the petrol prices would not have rose this high.The petrol proce hike is nothing but the American method of persuasion,Even the NDA governmwent wouldnt have s
RE:USA's persusion techniques
by ranjith nambiar on Jul 12, 2008 09:58 PM Permalink
Only thing that Inia can do nw is to do R&D and ecome self sufficient in Energy. There is no other go.Our Govt has to sign treaty with IAEA,or we will land in more troubles like etrol price hike and others.
RE:USA's persusion techniques
by neel sanghvi on Jul 12, 2008 10:06 PM Permalink
ridiculous. basically all who says india has no other option but to sign IAEA are cowards and would like others to be same. there is no reason to sign IAEA at current conditions and with Hyde Act. government should have handled it better. this is definately current government's inability to protect india's interest. Mr. Singh is taking this personal instead of national issue and congress chief Sonia has two motives to support mr. Singh. First, she has no idea what is going on and hence she has to back PM in order to keep congress going. second, Rahul gandhi can only be introduced if Dr. Singh's popularity goes down. and hence for Sonia it is more personal rather than national interest as well.
RE:USA's persusion techniques
by sunil ananda on Jul 12, 2008 10:05 PM Permalink
its a wrong notion that theUS is supplying oil to India.India buys its reqmt from the oil market which includes long term contracts and spot buy rates.US does not figure anywhere in the sellers list.
RE:USA's persusion techniques
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 10:04 PM Permalink
The facts are wrong. Petrol price did not increase after Pokhran II significantly. They did after the Iraq invasion, though soon after it slumped. It started raising after an Indian working for Goldman Sachs predicted that price of oil will rise to $100 in 2004. Soon a cartel led by Goldman Sachs that included financial biwigs like Morgan Stanley joined by hedge funds started investing in oil futures in largely unregulated commodity markets. Here unlike equity markets, forward positions could be taken as low as 6% margins. That means if a forward contract is taken, you need to provide only a margin of $6 for a position that values $100.
It is estimated that nearly $4-5 trillion dollars are invested in commodity markets. Despite Congressional investigations that conclusively proved the links of speculation, the Bush and Gordon Brown Administration refuses to ban speculation despite it causing global inflation.
RE:RE:USA's persusion techniques
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 10:07 PM Permalink
Omar Abdullah, who was Minister of External Affairs during NDA in tonight's Big Fight confirmed that the NDA was negotiating a similar deal. He also confirmed what they got in the deal was substantially less than what the UPA got. Most importantly, he confirmed that the NDA was prepared to sign such a deal which is distinctly worse
RE:USA's persusion techniques
by binod pal on Jul 12, 2008 10:13 PM Permalink
You must visit UP and see that most of the cities there get electricity for only 10-12 hrs per day, so what can see said of the rural areas. So, don't you see that it is energy crisis or what. Most of states in India, now a days faces severe electricity problem. So, going for the deal is a good idea.
RE:RE:USA's persusion...
by Chivas Regal on Jul 12, 2008 10:16 PM Permalink
Even the hide acts in nuclear deal is not understandle by UPA, PM and Sonia too. USA thinks atleast 100 year advancer than India. If USA wants deal with India, the hidden act must be clear 1st. Even till date, USA doesnt recognise India as a Nuclear power?? this is the backdrop of the Nuclear deal. UPA is now telling that,goverment keeps Indian interest 1st, but he is keeping USA interest 1st. What ever in Nuclear deal is written is not clear, why not UPA government clear all the things to USA 1st, then it put in the Parliament. Without knowing anything how opposition will support?? We must know what is hidden act in deal and 1st clearfy. Now this is time of election..the price of all the things has become double and triple, Sensex is going down...UPA government is not taking any initiative to control the price and improve the situation of Sensex, only telling that Crude oil price has increased, and blla blla....To divert the mind of these things..UPA government is only talking about Nuclear deal..This is only politics of UPA and nothing more than that.
RE:USA's persusion techniques
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 10:23 PM Permalink
Yes by next year, every time there is load shedding or a power breakdown, particularly in summer, people are going to curse Prakash Karat or LK Advani. The UPA should hold elections in summer
RE:USA's persusion techniques
by Gopal on Jul 13, 2008 12:17 AM Permalink
All these halla ballu is for the sake of 6800MW of nuclear energy by 2020. ie 3% of total. Energy starts flowing in 2020. At the present rate of inflation it will cost Rs20/- per unit. Taking into account the decommissioning corpus fund the cost will be Rs30-40 per unit. We have to import oil for major portion of our energy needs
The agreement Article 103 text says "IAEA shall make such reports as it deems appropriate" in case of ANY non-compliance by India.
IAEA reports to Security Council. It is under this clause that they can recommend for military action against India for ANY non-compliance with ANY conditions of this agreement.
Saddam Hussain was best friend of USA. He fought a war for a decade with Iran for the sake of USA. Finally what happened? US caught him and was hanged "Live telecast on TV".
The Afghans fought a war against USSR soldiers for many years with US support. Finally US bombed the same Afghans.
Now India is best friend of USA. If relations go sour later what will happen to India?
RE:Dangerous for India
by avijit ganguly on Jul 12, 2008 10:00 PM Permalink
relax!!! in a couple india will itself be a member of the security council for sure!!!
RE:Dangerous for India
by neel sanghvi on Jul 12, 2008 10:11 PM Permalink
ahahha. here are some optimistics who do not have practicle knowledge. I am sure you would be aware of india's condition at this moment. China's economy is growing much faster than India's. while Indian government can not controll inflation, can not protect india's security, is working on dividing india with reservation and is doing everything for personal reasons rather than for national interest. I am sure you will see India is going down instead of going up and probably india will have to beg in couple of years due to mismanagement of government. and yes, when it india has to beg, It will be much easier for Mr. Singh to convince whatever he wants and that is what congress wants.
France is working on reducing the dependency on Nucleat energy by closing 32 plants by 2012. France is aiming to reduce its dependency on nuclear energy less than 20% by 2012, though it has high level reserve on nuclear fuel
RE:While all world is moving away from Nuclear energy, we are running after it
by rajiv jaiswal on Jul 12, 2008 09:44 PM Permalink
coz france is already developed and we are developing
RE:While all world is moving away from Nuclear energy, we are running after it
by Joy Abraham on Jul 12, 2008 09:49 PM Permalink
You got the wrong message. Nuclear energy is very expensive and very dangerous. That is why civilized countries are not going for it. USA has not built a plant in last 25 years. Most european countries do not have nuclear plants, eventhose who have Uranium.
RE:RE:While all world is moving away from Nuclear energy, we are running after it
by xaybzc on Jul 12, 2008 09:55 PM Permalink
man...this nuclear energy is not for you....for those who otherwise would be dieing of starvation.....
RE:While all world is moving away from Nuclear energy, we are running after it
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 09:50 PM Permalink
Through nuclear power generation France produces more power than it consumes so much so it subsides power exports to UK, Italy and other neighboring countries, to induce them to buy their power and dissuade them to invest in their own domestic power projects.
But this subsidy is leading to larger fiscal burden. So the closure of plants is basically for two reasons. One to cut their fiscal burden 2. The productive life of these plants are also over or they are older plants not equipped with safety and efficiency features which their latter designs incorporate.
So cite the French example is an inappropriate analogy for India
RE:RE:While all world is moving away from Nuclear energy, we are running after it
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 09:54 PM Permalink
Yes US has not build nuclear plants and so did European countries like UK. Things have changed. The French experiment has shown that it can be safe. Beside spiraling cost of fossil fuels have redefined economic viability. So the US and UK are going big time into nuclear capacity creation.
Out of the 35 new nuclear power plants under construction in the world, Asia accounts for 24 of these. While China is building six new nuclear power plants to get 5,222 MW power for its grid, India too is building six such plants which would add 2910 MW of to its grid.
RE:While all world is moving away from Nuclear energy, we are running after it
by Kautilya on Jul 12, 2008 10:15 PM Permalink
Please also mention that Japan too is not increasing nuclear energy capacity which is fully dependent on oil from other countries. With all money and technology JAPs would have gone nuclear and would have kicked oil from their country. However it is not happening.
Mr. All Right, for japan nuclear energy is not all right.
RE:While all world is moving away from Nuclear energy, we are running after it
by xaybzc on Jul 12, 2008 09:53 PM Permalink
coz 22 crores of indians are below poverty line...and sleep quietly without food....every night.....
RE:While all world is moving away from Nuclear energy, we are running after it
by neel sanghvi on Jul 12, 2008 10:15 PM Permalink
yes. right and it is not because of N-energy. it is because of corruption, high inflation and mismanagement of government. n-deal will not solve this problems.
Hey you Political Criminal...Just Get Out of Our Country..We Dont Agree and Trust Any One of You...You all just fooling us and selling our nation.....Now i feel its time to naxalite to operate...
Even the hide acts in nuclear deal is not understandle by UPA, PM and Sonia too. USA thinks atleast 100 year advancer than India. If USA wants deal with India, the hidden act must be clear 1st. Even till date, USA doesnt recognise India as a Nuclear power?? this is the backdrop of the Nuclear deal. UPA is now telling that,goverment keeps Indian interest 1st, but he is keeping USA interest 1st. What ever in Nuclear deal is written is not clear, why not UPA government clear all the things to USA 1st, then it put in the Parliament. Without knowing anything how opposition will support?? We must know what is hidden act in deal and 1st clearfy. Now this is time of election..the price of all the things has become double and triple, Sensex is going down...UPA government is not taking any initiative to control the price and improve the situation of Sensex, only telling that Crude oil price has increased, and blla blla....To divert the mind of these things..UPA government is only talking about Nuclear deal..This is only politics of UPA and nothing more than that...
